About the tankers...
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
[QUOTE=KC10 FATboy;906573
Our bigger problem is the KC-135 is old, but the newer KC-10 has hours. While the KC-135 spent decades on the ramp sitting alert, the KC-10 has always been flying. As much as we need a replacement for the KC-135, we need to start looking to replace Big Sexy (KC-10). Her maintenance reliable since I've left the fleet has gone down a lot and she's showing her age. The KC-10 also has a legacy cockpit, the KC-135 does not. The USAF failed to upgrade the KC-10 and everyone is ignoring the big snafu that is coming with the new navigational requirements. To think that ICAO is going to give our tankers a waiver is very naive.[/QUOTE]
I've been pretty involved in the 135 CWG and can say this is one area the tanker is probably very well funded, relative to other platforms. In the next 5-10 yrs we will probably have an all glass cockpit with autothrottles and maybe even an autopilot that can level off by iteself! Downside is we are basically reverse engineering a modern glass cockpit, sometimes resulting in a very bastardized interface with little cultural understanding in how to operate it (hello long ass SAC checklists!). Sometimes I think we would have been better to just save the money and start over.
So she is basically getting new makeup and some new jewelry, but the bones are the same.
KC
Our bigger problem is the KC-135 is old, but the newer KC-10 has hours. While the KC-135 spent decades on the ramp sitting alert, the KC-10 has always been flying. As much as we need a replacement for the KC-135, we need to start looking to replace Big Sexy (KC-10). Her maintenance reliable since I've left the fleet has gone down a lot and she's showing her age. The KC-10 also has a legacy cockpit, the KC-135 does not. The USAF failed to upgrade the KC-10 and everyone is ignoring the big snafu that is coming with the new navigational requirements. To think that ICAO is going to give our tankers a waiver is very naive.[/QUOTE]
I've been pretty involved in the 135 CWG and can say this is one area the tanker is probably very well funded, relative to other platforms. In the next 5-10 yrs we will probably have an all glass cockpit with autothrottles and maybe even an autopilot that can level off by iteself! Downside is we are basically reverse engineering a modern glass cockpit, sometimes resulting in a very bastardized interface with little cultural understanding in how to operate it (hello long ass SAC checklists!). Sometimes I think we would have been better to just save the money and start over.
So she is basically getting new makeup and some new jewelry, but the bones are the same.
KC
#32
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
Gotta echo the above. I have a choice of Tricare and a FedEx health plan. It cost $3,000 a year more to use the FedEx plan, but I gladly pay it to not have to deal with the "government tricare".
#34
At least with whichever tanker wins this competition, you won't have KC-135s flying around with drogues on the boom saying, "sorry bro" to the F-16s at bingo.
Booms in the air don't matter much when that boom is stuck with a drogue on it.
Tankers need to go both ways.
Booms in the air don't matter much when that boom is stuck with a drogue on it.
Tankers need to go both ways.
#35
My wife is fine now (7 yrs cancer free!), but when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease she got great care, and she was even assigned a nurse case manager who we could call anytime. The case manager was particularly helpful when we got bills from the hospital for tens of thousands of dollars -- my phone calls to the hospital accomplished nothing, but the problem quickly went away when I involved the nurse case manager.
No issues here so far with Tricare. YMMV.
#36
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
The one caveat to my savings is that I'm not willing to put my family in an HMO. Of course you can save more money in an HMO. But the ability to send my family to any doctor without referrals is worth sticking with a PPO.
#37
I realize we are getting off the subject here, but I have to say, my family and I have been with Tricare Prime for years and have never had any problems or paid a penny. Our son has a mild case of Cerebral Palsey and we've been to more doctors/specialists than I care to count, and never a problem. They've taken great care of us.
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,169
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
When doing my research prior to my going in, I found more than a few instances like the one you linked above, all outside of military health care.
Just like Eagle guys.
#39
Fatboy has a great point with the number of booms. It's 1's and 0's, a loss of .4 is a 1. From the fighter perspective both on the recieving end and working on the floor in the 'Died, size isn't the end all be all answer. The rows of of 135's there would be severly limited if replaced with something bigger. Real estate is a huge planning factor along with sheer numbers. I think I can count on one hand the number of times my tanker plan over Iraq or the 'stan went as planned. Everything else was dictated by how froggy the gomers were that day, and where our support was needed. It was inevitable that a cry for help to get a tanker over head would go out so that we could support the guys on the ground, and even then we'd be yo-yo'ing during someone else's cycle and have to wait for our turn on the teet. With fewer numbers, the tanker guys would be even more handcuffed and I can't tell you how many times I've plugged at or below bingo after they raced over at max blast to support. They're already working a complex puzzle with what they have (and do a phenominal job of it), if you cut down the number of booms in the air, regardless of how much gas the platform holds, you severely cut down the combat effectiveness of the end user. Today that end user are the guys on the ground 90% of the time.
EADS will likely win tanker, says Boeing consultant Leeham News and Comment